Good point. The GYP build description stuff that is coming will help us get over that hurdle with VS2008. Anyways, if the tax of another buildbot and toolchain configuration is worth the benefits, then of course we should set it up :)
-Darin On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Dan Kegel <d...@kegel.com> wrote: > Newer gcc versions tend generally to be stricter at parsing c++, > but otherwise compatible with previous versions. > Supporting VS2008 is more work because of its project file format > change. > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Darin Fisher <da...@chromium.org> wrote: > > We don't have a buildbot for VS2008. How is this different? > > -Darin > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Ian Fette <i...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> > >> At some point, we're going to have to support a newer version of GCC, > no? > >> It seems like tackling these errors as they creep up is more manageable > than > >> trying to sometime later switch to supporting a more recent release of > GCC > >> and then realizing that we've got 50,000 errors to work through... > >> my $0.02 > >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Darin Fisher <da...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >>> > >>> It is sometimes worth it to reduce the supported toolchain to help > reduce > >>> distractions. If these warnings are beneficial, then a bot is probably > a > >>> good idea. However, a red bot is bad... so we'd probably have to > commit > >>> ourselves to fixing any bustage. I'm not sure what's better... how > >>> beneficial are the warnings? > >>> -Darin > >>> > >>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:42 AM, Evan Martin <e...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> We have a steady trickle of reports from people who run into problems > >>>> building on gcc 4.3. [1] > >>>> The problem is that our buildbots use gcc 4.2 and the compilers have > >>>> slightly different warning sensitivities. [2] > >>>> See, for example, > >>>> http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=7742 . > >>>> > >>>> Options: > >>>> 1) Provide some sort of way for people to turn off -Werror (which > >>>> makes warnings into errors). Maybe make it dependent on your compiler > >>>> version. I don't like this much, but it's an option. > >>>> 2) Just fix these problems as people report them. > >>>> 3) A gcc 4.3 buildbot. > >>>> > >>>> I'd say the last is best, but it means that people will occasionally > >>>> break that buildbot and need to look at its error output and make > >>>> educated guesses to fix it. On the other hand, it will occassionally > >>>> pick up real problems with our code. What do y'all think? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> [1] For reference, here are some log entries that mention gcc 4.3: > >>>> $ git log --grep="4\.3" | grep "4\.3" > >>>> Fix gcc 4.3 build break. > >>>> Fix compiler warning with GCC 4.3. Patch by Craig Schlenter (see > >>>> http://codereview.chromium.org/20075 ), r=me. > >>>> Fix warning which breaks compile with gcc 4.3.x > >>>> g++ 4.3.x doesn't seem to like forward declarations > >>>> This fixes a compile error with gcc4.3 (hash_fun.h was moved from > >>>> ext/ > >>>> I tested locally with gcc 4.3, but gcc 4.2 behaves differently and > >>>> fails. > >>>> Fix Linux build failure caused by GCC 4.3/4.2 differences. > >>>> Linux: GCC 4.3 warning fixes > >>>> The lastest Skia drop included some code which triggers warnings > >>>> with GCC 4.3 > >>>> and fixed a useful gcc-4.3 warning re operator precedence. > >>>> GCC 4.3 fixes > >>>> Add suggested parentheses to fix build with GCC 4.3 > >>>> Fixed build issues on gcc-4.3.1. > >>>> GCC 4.3 build fixes. > >>>> > >>>> [2] For reference, here are three recent problems gcc 4.3 picked up: > >>>> 1) int width, height; SomeFunction(&width, &height); > >>>> warning was: variables may be used uninitialized > >>>> fix: initialize width, height to zero > >>>> 2) SomeFunction(foo, bar, mystring); > >>>> warning was: format string expected > >>>> fix (conceptually, at least): SomeFunction(foo, bar, "%s", > mystring); > >>>> 3) src/webkit/tools/npapi_layout_test_plugin/PluginObject.cpp:560: > >>>> error: ignoring > >>>> return value of 'size_t fwrite(const void*, size_t, size_t, FILE*)', > >>>> declared with > >>>> attribute warn_unused_result > >>>> fix: we should look at the result of fwrite to make sure it succeeds. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
